This writ petition has been filed challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 24.9.1997 passed by the respondent No.5 dismissing the petitioner from the service of Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), as affirmed by the appellate authority vide the appellate order dated 14,2.1998 and by the revisional authority vide the order dated 3.4.1999. 2. The delay in filing of the present writ petition has been explained by the petitioner for the reason that initially a writ petition was filed before the Patna High Court as the petitioner hails from the State of Bihar. The writ petition, which was registered as CWJC No. 10427/1999, was withdrawn vide order dated 14.9.2001 with liberty to file writ petition before the court having jurisdiction. Thereafter, the present writ petition was filed before this court on 28.8.2003. The case was admitted for hearing on 2.9.2003. 3. Shorn of details, the essential facts necessary for adjudication of the case may be briefly noted. 4. Petitioner joined CRPF as a Constable on 23.10.1980. At the relevant point of time, petitioner was attached to 6th BN CRPF at Itanagar, which was under CRPF Group Centre, Guwahati. 5. Petitioner passed junior cadre course in the year 1990 and thus became eligible for promotion to the cadre of Lance Naik. However, promotion was not given to the petitioner on the ground of pendency of two criminal cases. According to the petitioner, the two cases related to land dispute at his native village. But ultimately, petitioner was promoted to the cadre of Lance Naik vide order dated 13.12.1993 along with other persons. 6. Show cause notice under rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 dated 2.2.1995 was issued to the petitioner alleging that he had submitted a fake court judgment and tried to cheat the Force to ensure his promotion as Lance Naik. 7. The disciplinary authority appointed an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charge levelled against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer conducted his enquiry and on completion of the same, submitted his report to the disciplinary authority on 10.7.1995. Disciplinary authority without furnishing a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner, sought for his reply on the proposed penalty. Though the petitioner submitted reply, the same was not considered and the petitioner was dismissed from service. Petitioner received the dismissal order on 11.9.1995. 8. Disciplinary authority without furnishing a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner, sought for his reply on the proposed penalty. Though the petitioner submitted reply, the same was not considered and the petitioner was dismissed from service. Petitioner received the dismissal order on 11.9.1995. 8. On appeal being filed by the petitioner, the appellate authority passed order dated 9.4.1996 setting aside and quashing the disciplinary proceeding drawn up against the petitioner and directed re-instatement of the petitioner. However, the disciplinary authority was given liberty to conduct a de-novo enquiry. 9. Pursuant to the appellate order, the Commandant of the 6th BN CRPF, being the disciplinary authority, issued fresh show-cause notice under rule 27 of the CRPF Rules dated 11.1.1997 levelling the same set of allegation against the petitioner. Shri A.K. Dhayani, Assistant Commandant of the same Battalion was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and submitted his report dated 17.7.1997 to the disciplinary authority, who in turn forwarded a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner to submit representation, if he so desired, on the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Petitioner submitted his representation wherein he stated that he had filed a copy of order dated 14.9.1994 of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi acquitting him in Sessions Case No.9/1991, which was one of the two criminal cases pending against him. 10. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority passed order dated 24.9.1997 dismissing the petitioner from service. Though the petitioner filed an appeal against the aforesaid order passed by the disciplinary authority, his appeal was rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 14.2.1998. Petitioner then filed a revision petition before the Inspector General, North Eastern Sector, CRPF, Shillong, being the revisional authority, but the said authority rejected his revision petition vide order dated 3.4.1999. 11. As noticed in the initial part of this judgment, petitioner had initially moved the Patna High Court but subsequently, after withdrawing the writ petition so filed in the Patna High Court, had filed the present writ petition before this court. 12. A common counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Stand taken is that petitioner's service record reflects imposition of punishments on a number of occasions. Petitioner was given promotion on 24.3.2004 (sic) but his promotion was not made effective because of pendency of two criminal cases. 12. A common counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Stand taken is that petitioner's service record reflects imposition of punishments on a number of occasions. Petitioner was given promotion on 24.3.2004 (sic) but his promotion was not made effective because of pendency of two criminal cases. Show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on the allegation of submitting fake Court judgment relating to promotion and seniority. Following departmental proceeding, petitioner was dismissed from service. However, the appellate authority had set aside the dismissal order on the ground of procedural irregularity but give liberty to the disciplinary authority to hold enquiry afresh. Petitioner was re-instated in service thereafter. Petitioner had produced copy of judgment dated 11.10.1993 which the department refused to accept as genuine. Burden was on the petitioner to prove the document as genuine. On the basis of documentary evidence, the Enquiry Officer held that the charge of submitting fake document was proved by such document itself. Therefore, there was no necessity to examine any prosecution witness. As a matter of fact, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi himself wrote to the disciplinary authority that no such judgment was authored by him. Petitioner failed to prove the genuineness of the document (fake judgment). After the Enquiry Officer submitted his report, copy of the same was furnished to the petitioner to submit his representation. Thus, full opportunity was given to the petitioner in the departmental proceeding. 13. Heard Mr. R. Hussain, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. B. Das, learned Central Government Counsel. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while petitioner was involved in two criminal cases relating to land dispute in his native village, he was acquitted in both the cases vide court judgments dated 14.9.1994 and 27.9.1996. The charge against the petitioner was relating to submission of a copy of judgment of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi dated 11.10.1993, relating to promotion and seniority, which was alleged to be a fake judgment. He submits that petitioner did not file any such case and there was no reason for the petitioner to submit a copy of such judgment. It is also not clear and no finding has been recorded as before whom copy of the said judgment was submitted by the petitioner. In such circumstances, it was not at all justified to hold that petitioner had submitted a copy of such judgment. It is also not clear and no finding has been recorded as before whom copy of the said judgment was submitted by the petitioner. In such circumstances, it was not at all justified to hold that petitioner had submitted a copy of such judgment. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the procedure laid down in rule 27 of the CRPF Rules was not followed thereby vitiating the enquiry proceeding. He further submits that no Presenting Officer was appointed to present the case of the department before the Enquiry Officer. As a result, the Enquiry Officer himself assumed the role of a prosecutor and of a judge. Learned counsel submits that this is impermissible and had rendered the enquiry conducted null and void. In support of his submission, learned Counsel has placed reliance on a decision of this court rendered in the case of Mutum Shantikumar Singh v. Union of India and Others, 2005 (1) GLT 413; (2005) 3 GLR 43, which view has been affirmed by a Division Bench judgment of this court in Union of India and Others v. Ram Lakhan Sharma, 2011 (3) GLT 281. He has also placed reliance on another Division Bench Judgment of this court in W. Birbal Singh v. State of Manipur and Others, 2010 (5) GLT 371. 15. The submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner have been opposed by learned Central Government Counsel. She submits that petitioner did not submit written statement. Copy of the judgment relating to promotion and seniority, which turned out to be a fake one, was submitted on 11.10.1993 and the petitioner got promotion from Constable to Lance Naik on 13.12.1993. From the above sequence of events, there is strong presumption as to the involvement of the petitioner in the submission of a copy of the said fake judgment. It was also confirmed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi that he did not pass any such judgment. Regarding absence of Presenting Officer in the enquiry, petitioner did not raise this issue during the enquiry. She submits that no prejudice was caused to the petitioner because of absence of Presenting Officer. Referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala and Others v. S.K. Sharma, (1996) 3 SCC 364 , learned Central Government Counsel submits that no case for interference is made out and, therefore, writ petition should be dismissed. 16. Referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala and Others v. S.K. Sharma, (1996) 3 SCC 364 , learned Central Government Counsel submits that no case for interference is made out and, therefore, writ petition should be dismissed. 16. Submissions made have been considered. I have also perused the record of the case, which has been produced before the court. 17. Before proceeding further, a brief reference to the relevant legal provisions in considered necessary. CRPF Act, 1949 has been enacted to provide for the constitution and regulation of an armed Central Reserve Police Force. The superintendence and control over the CRPF is vested in the Central Government and the CRPF is administered by the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of the CRPF Act and the rules framed thereunder through such officers as the Central Government may appoint from time to time. Section 11 of the CRPF Act deals with imposition of punishment on any member of the CRPF. Though the heading of the said section is "Minor Punishments", it deals with all the punishments. Sub-section (1) provides that the Commandant or any other authority or officer as may be prescribed, may, subject to the Rules, award in lieu of or in addition to suspension or dismissal from service, any one or more of the punishments mentioned therein, starting from reduction in rank to removal from any office of distinction or special emolument on grounds of disobedience, neglect of duty, remissness in the discharge of any duty or of any misconduct in his capacity as a member of the Force. Section 18 is the rule making provision. Accordingly, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 18 of the CRPF Act, Central Government has made the CRPF Rules, 1955. Chapter IV deals with organization of a battalion. In the organizational hierarchy, Lance Naik is placed above Constable. Chapter VI comprising of rules 27 to 36A deals with discipline. Rule 27 lays down the procedure for the award of punishments. As per clause (a), in case of dismissal or removal of Constable, the authority competent to impose the penalty is the Commandant, which punishment has to be inflicted after formal departmental enquiry, the procedure of which is laid down in clause (c). Rule 27 lays down the procedure for the award of punishments. As per clause (a), in case of dismissal or removal of Constable, the authority competent to impose the penalty is the Commandant, which punishment has to be inflicted after formal departmental enquiry, the procedure of which is laid down in clause (c). As per the procedure prescribed for conducting a departmental enquiry, the substance of the accusation should be reduced to the form of a written charge, copy of which should be given to the delinquent atleast 48 hours before the commencement of the enquiry. The charge should be read out to the delinquent. At the commencement of the enquiry, the delinquent should be asked to enter a plea of "guilty" or "not guilty" after which the evidence necessary to establish the charge should be let in. The delinquent shall have the right to cross--examine the witnesses. The documents relied upon in support of the charge are required to be put in evidence as exhibits and the delinquent should be allowed to inspect such exhibits before he is called upon to make his defence. The delinquent shall then be examined and his statement should be recorded by the officer conducting the enquiry. If the delinquent pleads guilty and does not challenge the evidence on record, the proceedings shall be closed for passing necessary order. But if he pleads "not guilty", he shall be required to file a written statement and also a list of witnesses whom he may wish to cite in his defence. If he declines to file a written statement, he shall again be examined by the officer conducting the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer shall forward his report together with the proceedings to the Commandant, who shall record his findings and pass orders where he has power to do so. 18. Having noticed the relevant legal provisions, the charge against the petitioner may now be looked into. The Enquiry Officer shall forward his report together with the proceedings to the Commandant, who shall record his findings and pass orders where he has power to do so. 18. Having noticed the relevant legal provisions, the charge against the petitioner may now be looked into. As per the memorandum of charge dated 11.1.1997, the allegation against the petitioner is that while he was posted as Constable in F/27th BN CRPF, he committed an act of serious misconduct/misbehaviour in his capacity as a member of the Force in that he submitted a fake court judgment dated 11.10.1993 purported to have been delivered by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi in the office of Officer Commanding F/27th BN CRPF on 14.11.1993 with mala fide intention with a view to promote his service interest in the matter of his promotion as Lance Naik with relative seniority, illegally and fraudulently. Thus, the substance of the allegation is that petitioner had submitted a fake Court judgment dated 11.10.1993 purported to have been delivered by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi in the office of the Commanding Officer on 14.11.1993 to influence his promotion to the rank of Lance Naik. 19. At this stage, the contents of the fake judgment, a copy of which is available in the record, may be briefly looked into. A bare reading of the same will reveal the absurdity of the "judgment". The heading of the judgment is as follows : "Complain - Promotion with seniority SI. No.71-- Bench No. 80066917 JCC pass, S. Choudhury, 27th BN CRPF". The judgment starts with the words "court approved by judgment order". In the initial portion, there is a reference to some complain case in the Delhi High Court regarding promotion to Lance Naik. The judgment ends by saying that necessary action regarding promotion to Lance Naik of the complainant be taken. 20. In his enquiry report dated 17.7.1997, the Enquiry Officer stated that the petitioner had deposited a false and forged court judgment reportedly delivered by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi on 11.10.1993 in the office of F/27th BN on 14.11.1993 which is related to promotion and seniority. Petitioner in his application dated 22.11.1993 addressed to the Director General, CRPF admitted about depositing the court judgment which was found to be false and forged. The Enquiry Officer held that the charge against the petitioner stood proved. Petitioner in his application dated 22.11.1993 addressed to the Director General, CRPF admitted about depositing the court judgment which was found to be false and forged. The Enquiry Officer held that the charge against the petitioner stood proved. The following is the report of the Enquiry Officer : "Report of Enquiry Officer After going through the statements of prosecution documents and the delinquent and examining the defence documents/evidence on record carefully, it is found that No. 800660517 Ct. S. Chaudhary presently posted in D/6 BN, CRPF Dimapur (Nagaland) deposited a false and forged Court judgment reportedly delivered by the Hon'ble CJM Sitamarhi (Bihar) on 11.10.1993 in the office of F/27 BN on 14-11-1993 which is related to J.CC SI. No. 71 and promotion seniority. In his application dated 22-11-1993 to D.G. CRPF, No. 800660517 Ct. S. Chaudhary admitted about depositing the court judgment which was found false and forged. During the examination of delinquent by E.O. he himself contradicted his answer. Such as he announced to E.O. that he has not submitted court judgment of CJM Sitamarhi (Bihar) dated 11.10.1993 to F/27 BIS CRPF (Answer-1 of question-1). Again he answered that he submitte some paper related to Police case in F/27 BN, CRPF (Answer of questio No.2). Then again he answered that on 14-11-1993 he has submitted judgment of Addl. District Judge and Session Judge Shri Dharam Da Topno (Answer of question 3,4 and 5). Later on when he was asked how he submitted a judgment of 1.9.1994 on 14.11.1993 in F/27 BN, he said that he has submitted some papers related to Police case (Answer of question No. 6). This shows he himself contradicting his answers in order to mislead and hide the fact. CJM Sitamarhi Shri Rakesh Ranjan also confirmed through his letter No. 459/94 dated 19.8.1994 to Comdt. 27 BN that he has not given any judgment on 11.10.1993 and the judgment submitted by No. 800600517 Ct. S. Chaudhary is fake and forged. In the light of above facts article 1 of charge sheet stands fully proved beyond any shadow of doubt on the basis of evidence on record. It reveal that Ct. S. Chaudhary by producing a false fake court judgment in order to enhance his promotion as L/NK committed an act of misconduct misbehaviour in the discharge of his duty in his capacity as a member o force. It reveal that Ct. S. Chaudhary by producing a false fake court judgment in order to enhance his promotion as L/NK committed an act of misconduct misbehaviour in the discharge of his duty in his capacity as a member o force. With the establishment of article I of annexure I the article I of annexure II stands proved itself. It does not require any more evidence. No. 800660517 CT. S. Chaudhuary could not produce any relevant defend document which could prove that he has not deposited the so called judgment of CJM Sitamarhi dated 11.10.1993. Keeping in view the documentary evidence and defence evidence available in record, No 800660517 Ct. S. Chaudhuary has been found guilty of the charge given in article I of annexure 1 of the charge sheet beyond any shadow of doubt Sd/- 17.7.1997............. Anil Kumar Dhayani A/C 6th BN, CRPF, Chumukedima. 21. From a perusal of the enquiry report, it becomes evident that n( Presenting Officer was appointed to present the case of the disciplinary authority. 22. Though rule 27 of the CRPF Rules does not expressly provide foi appointment of any Presenting Officer, this court in the case of Mutun Shantikumar Singh (supra) held that rule 27 does not bar the competent authority from appointing a Presenting Officer in the disciplinary proceeding for conducting the same in a fair manner in accordance with the principles of natural justice. After referring to various judicial pronouncements, it was held that in a departmental proceeding where no Presenting Officer is appointed, the Enquiry Officer assumes the role of the judge as well as prosecution inasmuch as in the absence of the Presenting Officer, the Enquiry Officer must examine the witnesses and exhibited documents, which will be in total violation of the principles of natural justice. It was finally held that appointment of Presenting Officer is a must in a disciplinary proceeding against a CRPF Constable. In that case, because of non--appointment of Presenting Officer, the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner, who was a Constable in the CRPF, leading to his dismissal, was declared as illegal and quashed. He was directed to be reinstated in service. 23. In Ram Lakhan Sharma (supra), the issue before the court was removal from service of a CRPF Constable following a disciplinary proceeding, which was affirmed in appeal and revision. He was directed to be reinstated in service. 23. In Ram Lakhan Sharma (supra), the issue before the court was removal from service of a CRPF Constable following a disciplinary proceeding, which was affirmed in appeal and revision. A Division Bench of this court held that even when the statute does not prescribe for appointment of a Presenting Officer in a disciplinary proceeding, then also same is required to be made to comply with the principles of natural justice. In the facts of that case, it was held that the Enquiry Officer in the absence of the Presenting Officer had put all the questions to the delinquent. Thus, the Enquiry Officer acted beyond his jurisdiction. If an authority acts beyond his jurisdiction and submits his report, the disciplinary authority should not act on such report. The court held as under: "(18) We are of the further opinion that in various disciplinary proceedings the statutory authority is working like an administrative authority when they have to act independently and discharge their duty as the statute prescribed applying their judicial mind. It is a settled position of law that the disciplinary proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding and the Inquiry Officer while acting in a disciplinary proceeding is to act like a judicial authority. We are of the further opinion that the Inquiry Officer should not act either for the Disciplinary Authority or for the delinquent officer. He is to act independently to take the inference of facts which is placed before him by the parties. He should not put questions like a Presenting Officer to the delinquent officer to prove the charges labelled against the delinquent officer. From such action of the inquiring officer it can be easily said that the inquiring officer is to the extent biased to the delinquent officer, which is unwarranted in law. If the statutory authority acted beyond the power vested on him then where the delinquent officer will go except to the court of law, which course really has been taken by the respondent--writ petitioner to prove the biasness of the inquiring officer in the writ petition and ultimately succeeded." 24. In W. Birbal Singh (supra), a Division Bench of this court held as under: "(15). In W. Birbal Singh (supra), a Division Bench of this court held as under: "(15). This court in the above cases held that the enquiry officer has assumed the roll of the Judge as well as the prosecutor, inasmuch as, in absence of the presenting officer, the Enquiry Officer himself examined the witnesses and exhibited documents and it would be violative of the rules and the fundamental principles of natural justice. Admittedly, in the disciplinary proceeding against the appellant-writ petitioner for the said 2 articles of charges no presenting officer was appointed and the Enquiry Officer himself assumed the roll of Judge as well as prosecution. Accordingly, we are of the considered view, that the disciplinary proceeding against the appellant-writ petitioner is liable to be quashed only on this score." That was a case of dismissal from service of a police constable following a disciplinary proceeding where no Presenting Officer was appointed. 25. Thus, following the above decisions, I am also of the view that failure to appoint a Presenting Officer had fundamentally affected the disciplinary proceeding drawn up against the petitioner and going by the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer, petitioner was clearly prejudiced by such omission. The same has vitiated the enquiry and the consequential punishment imposed. 26. As already noticed above, there were two criminal cases pending against the petitioner at Sitamarhi, Bihar. He was acquitted in both the cases on 14.9.1994 and 27.9.1996. According to the petitioner, he had submitted some papers relating to the above cases. 27. Petitioner was promoted along with others from Constable to Lance Naik on 13.12.1993. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had submitted a copy of fake judgment stated to have been delivered by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi on 11.10.1993 regarding his promotion and seniority. I have perused the contents of the said "judgment" and on the face of it, it is totally incomprehensible and absurd. It defies all logic as to why petitioner will commit such a folly which will jeopardize not only his promotional prospects but also his entire service career. Though as per the article of charge, petitioner had delivered a copy of the said judgment in the office of the Commanding Officer on 14.11.1993, there is no witness to say that it was the petitioner who had delivered the judgment in the office. Though as per the article of charge, petitioner had delivered a copy of the said judgment in the office of the Commanding Officer on 14.11.1993, there is no witness to say that it was the petitioner who had delivered the judgment in the office. Nobody has said that he had seen the petitioner delivering the said judgment in the office or that it was delivered to such and such officer or staff. Enquiry Officer has referred to petitioner's letter dated 22.11.1993 to the Director General, CRPF to arrive at the conclusion that petitioner had admitted about depositing the said Court judgment. But the Enquiry Officer failed to consider the statement of the petitioner that he did not file any case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate regarding his promotion and seniority. During the enquiry proceeding, on 15.3.1997, petitioner categorically pleaded "not guilty" to the charge framed against him. In such a situation, as per rule 27 of the CRPF Eules, the Enquiry Officer ought to have asked the delinquent to file a written statement within such period which should not have been less than a forthnight. If he had declined to file a written statement, he was required to be examined again by the Enquiry Officer. The proceedings of enquiry do not indicate that such a course of action was followed by the Enquiry Officer. 28. Therefore, it is quite evident that the procedure prescribed under rule 27 of the CRPF Rules has not been complied with in the present proceeding which had caused serious prejudice to the petitioner in view of the stand taken by him that he had neither filed any case in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi regarding his promotion and seniority nor had he submitted copy of such judgment in the office of the Commanding Officer. 29. It is, thus, clear that there was no evidence at all to substantiate the allegation that petitioner had submitted a copy of fake judgment purportedly delivered by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi to facilitate his promotion from Constable to Lance Naik. Entire case against the petitioner is based on suspicion and presumption. It is true that in a departmental proceeding, the standard of proof is not like that of a criminal trial or even like that of a civil suit as it is on the basis of preponderance of probability. Entire case against the petitioner is based on suspicion and presumption. It is true that in a departmental proceeding, the standard of proof is not like that of a criminal trial or even like that of a civil suit as it is on the basis of preponderance of probability. But even then, there has to be some evidence to uphold the charge. It is a settled proposition that suspicion or presumption cannot take the place of proof even in a domestic enquiry. 30. For all the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered view that the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner stood vitiated on account of violation of the principles of natural justice for non-appointment of Presenting Officer and also because the charge against the petitioner cannot be said to have been proved even by applying the standard of proof based on preponderance of probability. 31. Accordingly, impugned order dated 24.9.1997, appellate order dated 14.2.1998 and the revisional order dated 3.4.1999 are hereby set aside and quashed. Consequently, petitioner shall be re-instated in service. The entire period from dismissal to reinstatement shall be treated to be in service and petitioner shall be entitled to all service benefits pertaining to the said period except full back wages. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that it will meet the ends of justice if the petitioner is paid 50% of the back wages for the said period. Ordered accordingly. 32. Writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. 33. However, there shall be no order as to cost. _____________